|
In This Issue...
|
|
Opinions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letters - Feb. 7, 2006
|
|
Letters - Feb. 7, 2006
The “I” Word, an Omen of Change
Winds of change are beginning to blow across the nation. And so is the outrage at the President’s message that he is above the law when it comes to spying on the American people. Since the story broke in the New York Times, the word “impeachment” has begun to filter into the public arena in articles and public comment. One writer said, “This is an invitation to tyranny.”
“Unwarranted Executive Power,” an article by Barrons’ editorial page editor, Thomas G. Conlan, challenges this power that has gone beyond the Constitution, tweaking laws to suit President Bush’s agenda. There is no question that Article II clearly defines the role of the executive branch of government, its responsibilities and limitations.
In a caustic evaluation of the disregard President Bush has shown for the laws of the land, the editorial points out that, “Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as a sexual escapade under the Oval office desk and lying about it later.”
Another editorial in The Nation entitled “Bush’s High Crimes” quotes Senator Arlen Specter, Judiciary Chairman, as saying “The President’s domestic spying is inexcusable " clearly and categorically wrong.” And he plans hearings. Jonathan Schell in the same issue goes further. “The Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the President’s challenge.”
He reminds the reader that challenges to this power have a precedent in our history when Nixon defied the laws of the land. Nixon is quoted as saying, “When the President does it, it is not illegal.”
He challenged the Constitution and resigned when impeachment was eminent. Schell continues, “The only possible answer (from Congress) is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached.”
The blunt reproof to the President reflects the mood both in Congress and in civil society. Senator Feingold from Wisconsin summed it up: “The President is not king.” Once again, we will have to rein in the President to preserve trust in our government and uphold our democratic rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Ruth Hunter, Santa Cruz
|
